No way Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" was better directed than "Oliver". If one hadn't read the book, one didn't know what the hell was going on in "Space Odyssey". And to call "Oliver" "the weakest contender of the bunch" over "The Battle of Algiers", "The Lion in Winter" and Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" is asinine. Sorry Mr. Movie Snob, they got this one right. Oliver was a great little film, for a family movie musical it was a near perfect adaptation of Dicken's classic.

I don't mind Space Odyssey losing to Oliver for best direction. Directing large swaths of people to dance in-sync is much harder than telling a single actor to "stare at the camera for 10 minutes" while intercutting trippy lamp effects. Plus the Hollywood mantra of "kids are hard to direct in movies"...Remember that Hollywood awards prizes not only based on the finished product, but also based on an insider's knowledge of how hard it was to make that product.

I can see an argument of best picture (in hindsight, of course), but not really with the director award.

squealie:After "Crash" winning the Oscars lost all relevancy to me. /also, "LA Confidential" losing to "Titanic".

Crash was such an odd win. It was so manipulative. Branden Fraser's presence didn't help the film any either.

Brokeback Mountain wasn't what I would call Oscar material either. Very good film. More deserving than Crash... but for an Oscar? There have been much, MUCH better films that have *lost* in years past.

So many issues with Brokeback Mountain. It keeps being lauded for being this great step for cinema in its portrayal of gay lead characters yet it does such an injustice to the GLBT community -- portraying the characters as manipulative liars with commitment issues and ending, unsurprisingly, in tragedy. Bravo.

mjohnson71:picodenico: No mention of Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan???

This right here. Plus many other of the Mirimax jammed-down-our-throat wins.

Why the Stoppard hate?

Shakespeare in Love is one of the greatest scripts ever written. And one of the finest casts ever assembled. It's so godamm good you can completely ignore the female lead (like nearly the entire ensembles does) and it kicks even more ass. I am probably biased because its also the most realistic depiction of producing a new play ever put on film but its still a great movie.

1. Say what you will about Golden Compass, at least I could tell what was going on at any given moment. The fight scenes in Transformers were an unwatchable mess.

8. Even if you didn't care for Fellowship, you can't deny the beauty of the cinematography, and the Academy will always favor big, sweeping camera work over smaller more intimate camera work no matter how good the latter may be.

9. Citizen Kane just pissed off the wrong man.

10. 2001 was a victim of the fact that even science fiction literature hadn't fully shed its pulp image in the public consciousness, so Kubrick even being nominated was quite a coup.

Don't believe me? Watch Newman's face when he's photographing the invalid. He goes from 'whatever' to 'holy he11, this girl will never be normal again--and I'm the only one who can help her'. In that one scene, as he goes from detached drunk to regaining his humanity, he so badly outclasses Kingsley they're not even on the same planet.

When they gave it to him for "Color of Money" it was clear they were trying to make it up to him for all the years of top performances he'd given and they'd ignored.

Kingsley, meanwhile, stars in Uwe Bolls' latest masterpiece.

I always did like "The Verdict," one of my fave Newman flicks.But ease up on Ben Kingsley. It may not be worthy of a lifetime pass for any bad films, but I think Kingsley's work in "Sexy Beast" allows for a lot of forgiveness.

Ron Howard was robbed - probably because the Academy still considered him "Opie"

No, it wasn't Ron Howard, it was Tom Hanks. He'd won two years prior for Philadelphia, and the year before for Forrest Gump. They just couldn't give yet another Oscar to a Tom Hanks film. At the time I was pretty happy about it because I loved Braveheart, but that film hasn't aged well. Apollo 13 is still awesome, though. (Fun Fact: it was the first movie I saw with the DVD commentary, which was Jim Lovell and his wife. It was fascinating!)

Galvatron Zero:So many issues with Brokeback Mountain. It keeps being lauded for being this great step for cinema in its portrayal of gay lead characters yet it does such an injustice to the GLBT community -- portraying the characters as manipulative liars with commitment issues and ending, unsurprisingly, in tragedy. Bravo.

Not to mention that there was absolutely no chemistry between Jake Gyllenhall and Heath Ledger. When a starcrossed lovers story ends in tragedy, the viewer should be moved, if the movie was done well. I was all like, meh.

velvet_fog:frepnog: FriarReb98: I don't care how technically good of a movie Citizen Kane is, the undeniable fact is that there's a reason it's a hallmark of boring movies. Because it was painfully boring. We get it, Randolph Hearst was a douche of biblical proportions. Didn't take me 3 hours to tell you so.

Citizen Kane is a pretentious turd shat from a pretentious anus. It is practically unwatchable no matter what wiz-bang camera bullcrap it has.

1/10.

no troll. real people can not watch that movie. it is like watching paint dry. there is no entertainment to be found.

Galvatron Zero:So many issues with Brokeback Mountain. It keeps being lauded for being this great step for cinema in its portrayal of gay lead characters yet it does such an injustice to the GLBT community -- portraying the characters as manipulative liars with commitment issues and ending, unsurprisingly, in tragedy. Bravo.

Well, if you wanna go down that road (NTTAWWT), American Beauty was much, much worse. Severely closeted, apparently homophobic uber-jarhead gets all shooty when he worries his secret might get out.

Bith Set Me Up:yves0010: Bith Set Me Up: I'm still pissed at Eddie Murphy's "Nutty Professor" beating "Star Trek: First Contact" for best makeup. How the hell could this:

[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x300]

Be more impressive than this:

[movies.trekcore.com image 850x358]

That's not just a Borg. That's a KLINGON Borg!

Holy crap! I never noticed that. I have seen that movie over a 100 times and I never noticed that was a Klingon Borg.

There actually quite a few throughout the film:

[movies.trekcore.com image 850x358]

[movies.trekcore.com image 850x358]

[movies.trekcore.com image 850x358]

I never noticed the small details of the Borg. Still one of my favorite Star Trek Movies and the best of the TNG era. Also, they are one of three fictional creatures that scare the hell out of me (Xenomorphs and Weeping Angels being the others).

FriarReb98:I don't care how technically good of a movie Citizen Kane is, the undeniable fact is that there's a reason it's a hallmark of boring movies. Because it was painfully boring. We get it, Randolph Hearst was a douche of biblical proportions. Didn't take me 3 hours to tell you so.

Citizen Kane is a pretentious turd shat from a pretentious anus. It is practically unwatchable no matter what wiz-bang camera bullcrap it has.

chapman:"Of course, the robots were an absolute Marvel created by ILM. Weeks later, even New Line executives were still shocked that "Compass" (which never made enough at the box office worldwide to justify a sequel) took the honor. "

The Golden Compass didn't have a sequel because the studio screwed up. The domestic box office was weak, so they sold the international rights. It did great business internationally. At that point, the studio said "fark it" and gave up on trying to turn it into a franchise. Too bad, it was a pretty entertaining film. I could even tell what was happening in the fight scenes. Unlike a certain movie involving robots.

The Golden Compass didn't have a sequel because Christian right-wing outrage. They couldn't handle a big budget kid's movie that taught that the church is evil and they certainly couldn't keep producing films in the series until they killed god.

even tho the film actually gutted the philosophical stuff and barely even hinted that the bad guys were the church.

I don't care how technically good of a movie Citizen Kane is, the undeniable fact is that there's a reason it's a hallmark of boring movies. Because it was painfully boring. We get it, Randolph Hearst was a douche of biblical proportions. Didn't take me 3 hours to tell you so.

I disagree. While I personally prefer Pulp and Shawshank over Gump, any one of those movies could have taken Best Picture. They are all fantastic films. The kind of movies that once they are on, you can't stop watching...

And it's brought up in most Oscar threads, but Bill Simmons' suggestion that Oscar voting should take place on a five year delay is brilliant. Would really save the Academy some embarrassment. Assuming they get embarrassed over their insane picks, which I doubt

rocky_howard:JasonOfOrillia: 5 Best original song in '85.What won: "I Just Called to Say I Love You"What should have: "Footloose" or "Ghostbusters"

Disagree. Against All Odds by Phil Collins is a song that still holds up.

Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where, uh, Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums.Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Take the lyrics to "Land of Confusion". In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. "In Too Deep" is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as, uh, anything I've heard in rock. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like "In the Air Tonight" and the aforementioned "Against All Odds". But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is "Sussudio", a great, great song, a personal favorite.

I disagree. While I personally prefer Pulp and Shawshank over Gump, any one of those movies could have taken Best Picture. They are all fantastic films. The kind of movies that once they are on, you can't stop watching...

gunga galunga:No mention of that movie that Harvey Weinstein hornswaggled the Academy into voting for because he launched a blitzkrieg marketing campaign perfectly timed right when everybody stopped talking about the other top Oscar contenders but there was still a couple of weeks left during voting?

Sybarite:8. Even if you didn't care for Fellowship, you can't deny the beauty of the cinematography, and the Academy will always favor big, sweeping camera work over smaller more intimate camera work no matter how good the latter may be.

That's a ridiculous list for that year, though; any of those five winning would have been just fine.

No way Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" was better directed than "Oliver". If one hadn't read the book, one didn't know what the hell was going on in "Space Odyssey". And to call "Oliver" "the weakest contender of the bunch" over "The Battle of Algiers", "The Lion in Winter" and Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" is asinine. Sorry Mr. Movie Snob, they got this one right. Oliver was a great little film, for a family movie musical it was a near perfect adaptation of Dicken's classic.

I saw 2001 when it was released when I was 5 years old & I knew what was going on.It's not that complicated

No way Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" was better directed than "Oliver". If one hadn't read the book, one didn't know what the hell was going on in "Space Odyssey". And to call "Oliver" "the weakest contender of the bunch" over "The Battle of Algiers", "The Lion in Winter" and Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" is asinine. Sorry Mr. Movie Snob, they got this one right. Oliver was a great little film, for a family movie musical it was a near perfect adaptation of Dicken's classic.

No way Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" was better directed than "Oliver". If one hadn't read the book, one didn't know what the hell was going on in "Space Odyssey". And to call "Oliver" "the weakest contender of the bunch" over "The Battle of Algiers", "The Lion in Winter" and Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" is asinine. Sorry Mr. Movie Snob, they got this one right. Oliver was a great little film, for a family movie musical it was a near perfect adaptation of Dicken's classic.

but it wasn't even nominated. you know what won best makeup that year? mrs. doubtfire. now don't get me wrong, mrs. doubtfire did have some nice makeup i guess, but how can you even compare it to the ridiculous makeup effects in this movie? freaked was totally robbed.